Overlooked clichés

On number 14, it would be better to say Zombie Aragon for TLs where Aragon is revived as a kingdom way after the War of the Spanish Succession.

Another one would be an inevitable English Great Power.
 
Bumping, because I've had a few things bothering me for a while now:


Independence guaranteed: If a country declares independence and wins whatever initial struggle it may have, it will, more likely than not, stay independent for the rest of the TL, whether it lasts another decade, century, or millennia. This is more true for countries present in OTL than otherwise, such as Belgium or Switzerland. The writer is probably going to keep said country independent as long as he or she can, "killing" it off only if the author runs out of things to say, which leads to...

Death by Ignorance: If an author knows very little about a country or group of people, he or she will make another country or group of people he or she knows more about conquer the area.

Natives Don't Exist: I think we're getting better about this, but it's still found in some TLs centered around colonization. According to this, early colonizers of the Americas will never encounter natives during their initial settling period, unless those natives are the Aztecs or are armed with guns. Later expansion across the West will never have this problem either, so that an ATL with Swedish colonization of North America will have absolutely no problem establishing trade posts and cities in the Dakotas, say. Furthermore, if natives are mentioned at all and are defeated just once, they will never be a problem ever again. This cliche applies equally well to Africa, and, to a lesser degree, the Indies.
I think this should actually be stickied. Maybe make a rule saying that all TL's ignoring this are locked. Also have to add a fourth thing. Sure it's not a history cliche so much as a writing one, but boy does it bother me. Beginning DBWI's with "As you all know...". Stop it. While I don't have any regard for DBWI's and consider them an inferior form of thread, whenever my morbid curiosity compels me to read one, more often than not it begins with "as you all know...". This is bad. It is lazy writing and you should just stop it. There is no creativity involved. There's even a TV Tropes article talking about the sheer laziness of it all.
 
I think this should actually be stickied. Maybe make a rule saying that all TL's ignoring this are locked. Also have to add a fourth thing. Sure it's not a history cliche so much as a writing one, but boy does it bother me. Beginning DBWI's with "As you all know...". Stop it. While I don't have any regard for DBWI's and consider them an inferior form of thread, whenever my morbid curiosity compels me to read one, more often than not it begins with "as you all know...". This is bad. It is lazy writing and you should just stop it. There is no creativity involved. There's even a TV Tropes article talking about the sheer laziness of it all.

The As You Know article I assume?

I think a chinese philippines is an overlooked cliché, which for me is ASB.

Can't be worse than Japanese Philippines, or Japan always pulling off a Meiji.
 
Portuguese Galicia.

Surviving al-Andalus.

Ottoman Naples.

Earlier independent Greece.

Spain-screw.

British Caribbean or Rio de la Plata.
 
Portuguese Galicia.

Surviving al-Andalus.

Ottoman Naples.

Earlier independent Greece.

Spain-screw.

British Caribbean or Rio de la Plata.

Or the fact that the Ottomans will always be preyed on by the Russians and the Balkans end up, well, balkanized? ;)
 
The very fact that it only took one assassination to plunge Korea over the edge says something, and thus Japan annexing Korea is plausible.

First, I am saying Japan annexing Korea almost didn't happen in our timeline. So it is annoying that it always happens, even when butterflies could have or should have resulted in a stronger Korea relative to Japan. In our timeline the Japanese moved when they did in order to stop the Koreans form completing their modernization programs. They feared that Korea would soon be strong enough to challenge Japan, as the Korean Army was already starting to preform on par with the Japanese army. Keeping Korea independent of Japan is actually extremely easy. Its one of those things that was very unlikely in our timeline that people assume will happen in a different timeline just because it happened in ours.

Second, assassinating key Japanese leaders only a decade or so earlier could have lead to the same kind of national ruin in Japan. Several nations go thorough periods of time where one assassination could have ruined everything. People just assume these nations were stronger then they were because such assassinations never happened in our timeline.

Third, aren't there a lot of timelines here exploring the what if so and so wasn't assassinated? And aren't there a lot of timelines that prevent assassinations due to the butterfly effect? Having Korea remain independent is just as plausible as what happened to it in our timeline, so why is it never independent?
 
There is always POTUS whose last name is Roosevelt or Kennedy after POD.

After POD never assassinate POTUS.

If nazis lose WW2 Germany always keeps Schlesia and Pomerania. Poland get always Eastern Prussia.

Russian Empire/USSR never collapse.

Qing-dynasty collapse always.

Quebec become always indepent state.
 
First, I am saying Japan annexing Korea almost didn't happen in our timeline. So it is annoying that it always happens, even when butterflies could have or should have resulted in a stronger Korea relative to Japan. In our timeline the Japanese moved when they did in order to stop the Koreans form completing their modernization programs. They feared that Korea would soon be strong enough to challenge Japan, as the Korean Army was already starting to preform on par with the Japanese army. Keeping Korea independent of Japan is actually extremely easy. Its one of those things that was very unlikely in our timeline that people assume will happen in a different timeline just because it happened in ours.

Second, assassinating key Japanese leaders only a decade or so earlier could have lead to the same kind of national ruin in Japan. Several nations go thorough periods of time where one assassination could have ruined everything. People just assume these nations were stronger then they were because such assassinations never happened in our timeline.

Third, aren't there a lot of timelines here exploring the what if so and so wasn't assassinated? And aren't there a lot of timelines that prevent assassinations due to the butterfly effect? Having Korea remain independent is just as plausible as what happened to it in our timeline, so why is it never independent?
Brunei did that to OTL Luzon by raping it like the Normans did and having the heiress of the dynasty that had the most power Luzon in marry a relative of the ruler of Brunei.
 
Despite a early Medieval POD, Europeans can somehow manage to conquer the major Amerindian civilizations with little difficulty. Note that most examples never mentions native allies but a few hundred Europeans that somehow have the ability to crush any civilization. :rolleyes:

Just because it happened doesn't mean it was easy. It wasn't.
 
Despite a early Medieval POD, Europeans can somehow manage to conquer the major Amerindian civilizations with little difficulty. Note that most examples never mentions native allies but a few hundred Europeans that somehow have the ability to crush any civilization. :rolleyes:

Just because it happened doesn't mean it was easy. It wasn't.

It was a close run thing. Though of course diseases mean that the natives would be thinned.

Then again Vinland means that native American populations would be relatively more robust come the second wave of colonization.
 
It was a close run thing. Though of course diseases mean that the natives would be thinned.

Then again Vinland means that native American populations would be relatively more robust come the second wave of colonization.

Vinland proves that Vikings as badass they were could not handle living near the most primitive of the Native Amerindian peoples, the Beothuk of Newfoundland. ;)

I'm not denying the natives will suffer for the diseases. They can still show resistance as they did. I recall the Mixton rebellions in the 1540s.
 
Vinland proves that Vikings as badass they were could not handle living near the most primitive of the Native Amerindian peoples, the Beothuk of Newfoundland. ;)

I'm not denying the natives will suffer for the diseases. They can still show resistance as they did. I recall the Mixton rebellions in the 1540s.

And Vinland's problem is, well, not being as convenient as Greenland.

Sure it was a pretty nice place, but that part of North America isn't as lucrative as further south.
 
Top